Re: [Numpy-discussion] The process I intend to follow for any proposed changes to NumPy

Hi Travis, On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 4:51 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote: > Hey all, > > I just wanted to clarify, that I am very excited about a few ideas I have > --- but I don't have time myself to engage in the community process to get > these changes into NumPy. However,

Re: [Numpy-discussion] The process I intend to follow for any proposed changes to NumPy

Hi all, Thanks, Travis, for the followup. I know some people were confused or concerned by some points in Travis’s recent emails (as was I, initially), but after checking in with Travis and the NumPy steering council, it sounds like the main points of possible confusion are actually things where

Re: [Numpy-discussion] The process I intend to follow for any proposed changes to NumPy

Travis, I'm sure you appreciate that this might all look a bit scary, given the recent discussion about numpy governance. But it's an open-source project, and I, at least, fully understand that going through a big process is NOT the way to get a new idea tried out and implemented. So I think

Re: [Numpy-discussion] The process I intend to follow for any proposed changes to NumPy

Hey Chris (limiting to NumPy only), I've had some great conversations with Nathaniel in the past few days and I'm glad he posted his thoughts so that there is no confusion about governance or what I was implying. With respect to governance, I'm very supportive of what everyone is doing in

[Numpy-discussion] The process I intend to follow for any proposed changes to NumPy

Hey all, I just wanted to clarify, that I am very excited about a few ideas I have --- but I don't have time myself to engage in the community process to get these changes into NumPy. However, those are real processes --- I've been coaching a few people in those processes for the past several